Future of Coding is an online community with a welcoming, cooperative, and revolutionary spirit. We are unified in the belief that the common practice of programming is tragically less humane than it could be.

Future of Coding

&gt;  Dyad is <https://help.juliahub.com/dyad/dev/manual/syntax.html|a declarative physical modeling language> that has a one-to-one mapping with GUI views. This gives a textual representation that is amenable to analysis and generation by generative AI and devops pipelines, while allowing the same artifact to be used in the graphical environment.
<https://help.juliahub.com/dyad/dev/>

<https://www.ultorg.com/releasenotes/#version-2_0_0|Ultorg 2.0 Released!>

&gt; Ultorg is an efficient, spreadsheet-like UI for complex business data. Query and edit data across tables and relationships, without SQL or custom CRUD apps.


<https://gist.github.com/tearflake/569db7fdc8b363b7d320ebfeef8ab503|A different take on s-expressions making them more.. visual>?

My feeling is that we don't need to push ASCII and ASCII art any more in 2025. ASCII was a necessity in 1960, but, today, we can draw closed figures and allow them to overlap - and, we can parse such drawings, for example, drawio and Excalidraw save drawings in XML format, which is parseable text. If one strongly prefers to stick with non-overlapping grids of small bitmaps, one can now use Unicode instead of ASCII and avoid stuff like """.

Yes, but…

I love the silliness/charm of it.

&gt; The question we may pose is: how much would we let the child inside us to play.

ASCII art or no, I do think s-expressions are calling out for more than just a textual representation. I've been inspired by Fructure ever since I first saw it: <https://github.com/disconcision/fructure|https://github.com/disconcision/fructure>

Something close to Fructure visually but generalized to work with any s-expression language could be very cool. Could allow for direct text entry akin to paredit but use nREPL for completions if you have it available

The Advent of Computing podcast has an <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehr-jRtakUg|episode on Intercal> — and apparently also <https://github.com/rottytooth/INTERCAL72/|resurrected (at some level) the original compiler> (to run on x86).

A nice <https://www.jimruttshow.com/samuel-arbesman/|podcast episode> with Jim Rutt inverviewing <@U02A6KG76NP> on his new book "The Magic of Code" (which is now on my reading list). A good reminder (for those who need it, perhaps not so much people here) that computing is not just utilitarian.

Since Sam is around here, some short feedback:
1. It's weird to hear both of you dismissing APL as a mess not even worth learning, and then discussing computing as a tool for thought a few minutes later. The link between the topic should be obvious from just the title of Ken Iverson's Turing Award lecture, "<https://doi.org/10.1145/358896.358899|Notation as a tool of thought>:null:<https://apis.ebsco.com/public/linkout/v1/ftf?ref=79c1a803-bf3b-412a-9841-5283f3cceab1&amp;id=627071|">, which I definitely recommend everybody to read. APL was designed as a mathematical notation for algorithmic problems, and only later turned into an executable notation at IBM. It is certainly not, and was never meant to be, a language for writing large software systems. But for its intended problem domain, it still is a good choice.
2. Programming languages not based on English are indeed rare, but there are a few interesting examples beyond just translating keywords. <https://wy-lang.org/|文言 (wenyan)>  is based on classical Chinese that tries to incorporate even its grammar. <https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~imarkov/Perligata.html|Perligata> similarly takes inspiration from Latin grammar to build a Perl-like language on something pretty close to Latin (though not being "good" Latin, neither in vocabulary nor grammar). For those who read French, the <https://codesource.hypotheses.org/files/2025/01/BMeles-Programmer_autres_langues.pdf|slides of a presentation by Baptiste Mélès> say something about both these projects (I think the presentation was recorded, but I can't find it anywhere). <https://hedy.org/|Hedy> by <@U08HASUA7KQ> and coworkers is a very different take on this topic: a language meant to make programming accessible to people from various cultural backgrounds.

Thanks for the kind words and for this feedback. That piece by Iverson is fantastic and I had forgotten it was all about APL! I'll stop crapping on APL in the future! And good pointers re programming languages not based on English; this is wonderful! Thanks.

&gt;  Programming languages not based on English are indeed rare, but there are a few interesting examples beyond just translating keywords
Also Ramsey Nasser's [Qalb](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qalb_(programming_language)>)

You could have replied in thread so that your answer would not be lost from context.

Over time Cory Doctorow's fictional futures have gradually moved closer and closer to the present, and in "Picks and Shovels" the clock finally turns back to around 1985, and I have three FoC relevant quotes...

Thumbing further [through an issue of Creative Computing], I found an ad for something called a “Logo Turtle” billed as a “cybernetic toy” that you programmed in “a language for poets, scientists and philosophers.”  I decided I liked whoever had written that ad.

Accounting was fascinating enough, but the fact that we were doing it in VisiCalc spreadsheets made it all-consuming. Auto-mating the tabulations made it possible to automate errors, to commit them with a scale and velocity that mere pen-and-paper
accountancy could not have hoped to match. Tiny errors in formulas could cascade through sheets and workbooks, creating subtle, compounding errors that were nearly impossible to catch and even harder to root out.

I'll put the third, longer quote into the thread, but it begins "Spreadsheets are a form of science fiction."

Spreadsheets are a form of science fiction. All those novels we loved in the Irregulars’ clubhouse, passed hand to hand until their bindings broke and their covers fell off, they all asked some variation on what if or if this goes on or if only— and that’s exactly what a spreadsheet was for. Spreadsheets could break down a complex system as neatly as any engineering process diagram, but unlike a diagram, a spreadsheet was alive. I could cram a whole chemical factory into a spreadsheet— all its machines and its workers and its raw inputs and its batch times and QA inspections. Then, I could change it. What if we find a process improvement that makes this machine 10 percent faster? What if we schedule a third shift—will the additional outputs pay for time-and-a-half for the night crew? What if they just do this part of the job, increasing the productivity of the day shift?

Being able to alter my assumptions and having them instantaneously ripple through to a conclusion in the future made me feel like a science fiction hero, like Asimov’s Hari Seldon, or better yet, like a science fiction writer, like Heinlein constructing one of the future-history timelines that my father and I had puzzled and argued and delighted over for so many happy hours.

I loved building these models, these science fiction stories in formula form. Doing so scratched an itch I’d never known I’d had. It was an art form combining meticulousness, puzzle-solving, and imagination. It engaged my whole mind. It turned out that when my whole mind engaged with something, I was good at it.

And about that Logo ad, here's another reference <https://medium.com/@el_culebro/from-the-philosophy-of-the-open-to-the-ideology-of-the-user-friendly-2d22aaa50f86>:
&gt; And two years later, in a February 1982 issue of Byte magazine, Logo is advertised as a general-purpose tool for thinking with a degree of intellectuality rare for any advertisement: “Logo has often been described as a language for children. It is so, but in the same sense that English is a language for children, a sense that does not preclude its being ALSO a language for poets, scientists, and philosophers”.

Extended quote from this link that I really liked:

&gt; Despite studies released since 1985 that clearly demonstrate GUIs are not necessarily easier to learn or use than command-line interfaces, ... ‘user-friendly’ now takes the shape of keeping users steadfastly unaware and uninformed about how their computers, their reading/writing interfaces, work let alone how they shape and determine their access to knowledge and their ability to produce knowledge. As Wendy Chun points out, the user-friendly system is one in which users are, on the one hand, given the ability to “map, to zoom in and out, to manipulate, and to act” but the result is a “seemingly sovereign individual” who is mostly a devoted consumer of ready-made software and ready-made information whose framing and underlying mechanisms we are not privy to.
&gt; 
&gt; However, it’s not necessarily the GUI per se that is responsible for the creation of Chun’s “seemingly sovereign individual” but rather a particular philosophy of computing and design underlying a model of the GUI that has become the standard for nearly all interface design. The earliest example of a GUI-like interface whose philosophy is fundamentally different from that of the Macintosh is Douglas Engelbart’s NLS or “oN-Line System” which he began work on in 1962 and famously demonstrated in 1968. While his “interactive, multi-console computer-display system” with keyboard, screen, mouse, and something he called a chord handset is commonly cited as the originator of the GUI, Engelbart wasn’t so much interested in creating a user-friendly machine as he was invested in “augmenting human intellect”. As he first put it in 1962, this augmentation meant “increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems”. The NLS was not about providing users with ready-made software and tools from which they choose or consume but rather it was about bootstrapping, or “the creation of tools for expert computer users” and providing the means for users to create better tools, or tools better suited for their own individual needs. We can see this emphasis on tool-building and customization that comes out of an augmented intellect in Engelbart’s provision of “view-control” (which allows users to determine how much text they see on the screen as well as the form of that view) and “chains of views” (which allows the user to link related files) in his document editing program.
&gt; 
&gt; ...
&gt; 
&gt; ..the significance of the Star is partly the indisputable impact it had on the GUI design of first the Apple Lisa and then the Macintosh; its significance is also in the way in which it was clearly labeled a work-station for “business professionals who handle information” rather than a metamedium or a tool for creating or even thinking about thinking. And in fact, the Star’s interface — which was the first commercially available computer born out of work by Engelbart, Papert and Kay that attempted to satisfy both novice and expert users in providing an open, extensible, flexible environment and that also happened to be graphical — was conflicted at its core. While in some ways the Star was philosophically very much in line with the open thinking of Engelbart, Papert, and Kay, in other ways its philosophy as much as its GUI directly paved the way to the closed architecture and consumption-based design of the Macintosh. Take for example the overall design principles of the Star which were aimed at making the system seem “familiar and friendly.”
&gt; 
&gt; _Easy Hard_
&gt; 
&gt; concrete abstract
&gt; visible invisible
&gt; copying creating
&gt; choosing filling in
&gt; recognizing generating
&gt; editing programming
&gt; interactive batch
&gt; 
&gt; Star designers also avowed to avoid the characteristics they list on the right while adhering to a schema that exemplifies the characteristics listed on the left. While there’s little doubt that ease-of-use was of central importance to Engelbart, Papert and Kay — often brought about through interactivity and making computer operations and commands visible — the avoidance of “creating,” “generating,” or “programming” couldn’t be further from their vision of the future of computing. At the same time as the Star forecloses on creating, generating, and programming through its highly restrictive set of commands in the name of simplicity, it also wants to promote users’ understanding of the system as a whole — although, again, we can see this particular incarnation of the GUI represents the beginning of a shift toward only a superficial understanding of the system. Without a fully open, flexible, and extensible architecture, the home computer becomes less a tool for learning and creativity and more a tool for simply “handling information.”

A beautiful virtual museum of digital painting programs throughout the history of computing, from the 60s through the 90s  (via <@U01DWJSAF2B>) — <https://kristenroos.ca/timeline|Paint: a timeline> 

Isn’t it awesome? So many systems that I’ve heard about, but never seen. 

Totally! The only one I used myself was Deluxe Paint and whatever came bundled with ClarisWorks in the 90s.

Wild to see how far some areas have come… and how _stubbornly_ static others are. Color pickers in particular feel oddly stuck (though I know I’m biased :sweat_smile:).

In general it’s pretty wild how many interaction patterns were invented between the Alto and the Mac and haven’t really changed since!

x-posting <@U01CS7JM7K4> (via redblobgames):
&gt; Intriguing: live editing usually lets you edit some value in the browser or running app, but with an "LSP server" you can have it work with your existing text editor to edit in the original environment
<https://jamesbvaughan.com/bidirectional-editing/>

Yes! I’m hoping to see more people find interesting uses/abuses of language servers like this.

image.png

This is interesting. I'd like to add a third interface to take actions on the state: chatting with AI in natural language.

Even built this small proof-of-concept:

Love this! A couple years back I built a prototype live coding/DAW hybrid with that idea: <https://lambein.xyz/paw-live2023/>

there is <https://openscad.org/> with grammar and hotload, with trivial enough lang to write transpiler in page or 2 of lisp/clojure

(ah, it is mentioned in the article, and the point is *bi*-directional editing. nvm)

<https://x.com/headinthebox|Erik Meijer> on end-user programmable AI :
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3746223>

Chad Fowler <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fowlerchad_today-im-on-the-way-to-railsconf-the-last-activity-7348023668272177156-tC_E?utm_source=social_share_send&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop_web&amp;rcm=ACoAABcVZOcBWvyRc0psSZKfrFKPPeVB0azpvpk|lamenting> the loss of programming as a craft people cared about:

<https://merveilles.town/@akkartik/114829076988318728|I think this kind of sentiment says something about the (very many) observers having the sentiment, rather than the observed phenomenon>.

I remember his keynote - legacy code from Scala days Berlin 

New Jonathan Blow talk at LambdaConf about Jai
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdpD5QIVOKQ>

ngl I thought that was jonathan at the start and was like "wow when did jon get jacked"

turns out coding your own game engine and programming language gives you huge gains

Thats jon de goes. The founder of Lambda Conf. I met him in person in 2018. One of the early scala coders. He was always beefed up.

Bit of a controversial figure in the Scala community.

Yeah I think he did invite Curtis yarvin to lambda conf. 
Scala community is Not a simple place. See also John Pretty, or tony morris. 
I could interact with them without too many issues but it’s more complex. 

<https://www.rescala-lang.com/assets/pdf/2023%20Secure%20ARDTs%20(preprint).pdf|Algebraic Replicated Data Types (ARDT): Programming Secure Local-First Software> - by Rescala Lang folks
Found this as I am <https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5T9GPWFL/p1751954442859169|reading and learning about distributed reactive systems,> specifically around web applications, where the same reactive DAG could manage state across clients, backends and databases.

anyone interested in collaborating on a project for multiplayer LLMs and the future of social media?

think people working together to make a social media feed, a bit like twitch plays pokemon.

I'm looking for a frontend dev to partner with on a prototype project, making some chat UI components and some multiplayer chat to video. I've got a decent budget for infrastructure and have built a whole api that already exists and could work with this. it would just be a thing we build and release, with a couple thousand bucks worth of infrastructure credits I can throw at it.

feel free to shoot me a dm if you're interested in chatting!

So it would basically be a feed of AI generated content that is based on prompts decided by groups of real people?

No, going weirder than that (hopefully). Like search the web, download videos, search inside of them and live remix them

I started work on a prototype, can share a link maybe tomorrow

like they use text based commands to group edit some content?

Thinking is there’s a countdown, and yeah, you can @ the LLM and it can present options / vote

Idea is collaboratively generated / created media feed

and then after the timer goes off it spits out into the the feed and people comment/vote/like etc?

Sure! Not totally thought through yet. I’m trying to get away from isolating feeds

I think some people will definitely hate it, lol

Yeah ! And it’s totally half baked and dumb but that’s kinda the point

but for sure there's other people basically doing that right now on X with grok

just not as purpose built for collaborative media

I just mean that grok is a shared experience

yeah, I don't really use X, but I'm aware things happening in industry

mechahitler sounded like it was fun for the chaos gremlins

Yeah ideally there’d be interesting constraints somehow 

To prevent the dumb behavior and encourage something more interesting 

well, I don't think I'd be super interested in helping to build this, but I'm happy to give you feedback to ideas as you work on it

Like maybe by default the LLM is obsessed with something and you have to convince it otherwise before a timer runs out… and thanks! Even just this is useful!

yeah, I think I get the vision. I think there's a seed of a good idea here... but also a minefield of bad ones

Could even be invite only for friends, etc… I think there’s something to the group chat with a mission

I personally have mixed feelings about too much AI stuff. I use the tools too in various capacities, and they can be fun too, but I don't really want them to take over everything. And I do think we need to be aware of the energy impact and all kinds of stuff that makes AI ethically gray.

that said, I played with an idea for doing AI based oracle cards and readings that was kind of fun, and maybe could be a decent concept with work, but it did also help me see firsthand what the limits are.

Oh nice! I did an I Ching reading generator as an early project 

AI image generation has gotten better but its still slop

Yes agreed, I think there’s also the ability to analyze existing video and remix it, or render new video with non generative ai methods

and every time it can do new/better things they are popular for a liitle - but then I think people become averse to it

so as an investor, I'd be careful about something that costs a lot and makes very little

Yeah, there’s certainly a massive fomo and uncertainty about where the ceiling of capabilities is

I think there's enthusiasts who would enjoy this. there's people who would hate it (maybe even generate publicity!)

"an AI slop feed? Isn't facebook bad enough?!"

The level of expectations is already so low can only go up

but I get what you mean about creating an environment of playful collaboration

Yeah I’m genuinely worried about ai getting better at creating more effective feedback bubbles for people to get isolated in

and if you can capture that while avoiding the hazards, I see no reason not to play with the new AI tools that are popping up. I mean, where else is facebook and tiktok gonna get all of its AI content?

yeah, I hear what your fear is. and I suppose its possible. I have a feeling that people are going to crave authentic human to human connection more and more over the next few years as AI takes over everything

<https://bettersoftwareconference.com/> is happening now (online)

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo84LFzx5nI>

Came across this during my search for ideas on <https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5T9GPWFL/p1751954442859169?thread_ts=1751954442.859169&amp;cid=C5T9GPWFL|distributed reactivity>: 

Composable higher-order reactors as the basis for a live reactive programming environment:

<https://doi.org/10.1145/3281278.3281284|https://doi.org/10.1145/3281278.3281284>

<https://bjarno.xyz/publications/vub-soft-tr-18-19.pdf>

forth "repl"
<https://youtu.be/mvrE2ZGe-rs?t=1061>

Very mixed feelings about <https://blog.jonudell.net/2025/07/18/introducing-xmlui/|XMLUI> . I like the motivation and the overall approach to an accessible glue language, but just about everything about the implementation feels wrong. XML syntax is perhaps the worst - does anyone really want to stare at that kind of code?

recently I'd say "no", because xml sucks due to at least verbosity and lack of syntactic difference between lists and single-things (just like http GET parameters).
but now I think syntax is only as bad as your IDE is, so I'd say "meh, whatever".

Good point, but the blog post does not suggest the use (or even existence) of an IDE that hides XML syntax.

I'd call "hiding" – DSL.
"IDEing" – helping you to type as little as possible (autosuggest/complete) based on context you are (or cursor is) in, including but not limited to tag auto closing, tag and attribute names completion, valid attr values completion, cursor teleportation to next meaningful actionable place, moving blocks in and out of other tags, etc.

With all these, having a little redundancy in tag names (open/close) is... meh, bearable.
Also, this seems to be targeted at react+web, and keeping it similar looking makes some sense.

meh, whatever

Does anyone know where this quote comes from? "How is the abstraction, for understanding? Is it well designed to help you see what is happening underneath?" I was so certain it was from Learnable Programming or another Victor piece but I cannot for the life of me track it down. Maybe it's my paraphrase or misquote of someone and that's why I can't seem to Google it? Let me know if this rings a bell for anyone!

Steele and Sussman argue the exact opposite in <https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6094|The Art of the Interpreter or the Modularity Complex (Parts Zero, One, and Two>).

They say that a good abstraction has a meaning independent of its implementation and is not just an abbreviation.

Your comment now has me extra puzzled about this quote because now that you point it out, that is pretty close to the opposite of how abstractions are usually discussed (even without the extra nuance of the paper you linked, which I am looking forward to reading). I was thinking about the kind of abstraction where the interface hides something important and makes its behavior confusing until you can see what's inside.

The only thing I can think of that might be close is Dijkstra's comments about the difference between being abstract and being vague, and how abstraction is for creating a new semantic level at which one can be absolutely precise.

<https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD340.html|https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD03xx/EWD340.html>

<https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD656.html|https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD656.html>

That's all I can think of for now. That's not quite what you're looking for, but I hope it's at least interesting. Good luck in your search!

abstraction is a "reduction", tool.
"reduce to highlight the essence", or "reduce impl details away" – are the intentions of tool application.
"I can't figure out what this is all about until I read an impl" – is just an example of poor tool choice/application (or maybe just poor perception/pov).

Resonite (a.k.a. Future of VR, <https://resonite.com/Whitepaper.pdf|whitepaper>, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLoVnZZWwEM|video>) has an interesting built-in scripting engine. Probably the most immersive programming environment I've seen. I'll have to dust off my VR headset to try this one out!

My quick search hasn't revealed anything so I just wanted to share this here again which a friend mentioned to me today:
<https://www.thewayofcode.com/>

A while ago I remember I came across a blog post or spreadsheet contrasting a large number of known non-textual programming languages. One attribute of each project was the modality: node-wire, scratch-like puzzle piece, etc. Does anyone know what I'm talking about or have a link? It is not The Whole Code Catalog or any of the linked surveys, nor is it the "Future of Coding or Programming: Project Comparison" spreadsheet.

probably not this one either: <http://blog.interfacevision.com/design/design-visual-progarmming-languages-snapshots/>

Here's the link to the spreadsheet in case others are wondering:

<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12sTu7RT-s_QlAupY1v-3DfI1Mm9NEX5YMWWTDAKHLfc/edit?gid=0#gid=0>

Nope. I could honestly be misremembering the contents and just be thinking of the project comparison spreadsheet, but I swear the spreadsheet that I found had way more projects, and definitely had this modality column

<https://www.mathed.page/t-and-m/boxer-2022.pdf|Boxer: A Teacher's Experience> [pdf]

Lovely and heartfelt.

tacit (no local names), stack-oriented (forth), prefix-notated (lisp), APL <https://www.uiua.org/>
with a very good intro and "IDE" demo:
(Tacit Talk Episode 1: Uiua with Kai Schmidt) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqfXTNp5hJc>

Omg you can use all those old Mac OS versions here:
<https://aresluna.org/frame-of-preference/>

I won’t remove the link preview because it’s so pretty.

Based on (and with the help of) the dev behind <http://infinitemac.org|infinitemac.org>

<https://observablehq.com/notebook-kit/|Observable Notebooks 2.0 Technology Preview>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeH6AhiQ4Bw|Vibe coding a choropleth map in Observable Notebooks 2.0>

well I am glad they killed observable javascript

end of a big ol' stumbling block! and local editing with Vite! lovely infrastructure improvements

more big QoL
&gt; And notebooks are now “full bleed”, meaning they extend to the full width of the window rather than being limited to a central column.

after 30 mins of playing with it, where I think there are differences between Notebook 2.0 and Lopecode <https://bsky.app/profile/larkworthy.bsky.social/post/3lv5vyemd7c2h>
I have also noticed they have hardened the runtime a little so my previous hack for getting the runtime reference doesn't work. So I need to recrack it if I want to migrate to authoring using that tool

What does the runtime try to prevent you from doing?

Both notebook versions hide a reference to the runtime from userspace. To make your own userspace editor and serializer you need meta programming access via the runtime. The runtime is the spreadsheet engine. Lopecode is built on that reference. 
I don't think anything was deliberately broken but the front end language semantics have changed which needed some repairs. Still not got everything working but a good chunk is unblocked. There might have been changes to the runtime I can't quite tell yet

<https://github.com/observablehq/notebook-kit/discussions/20|https://github.com/observablehq/notebook-kit/discussions/20>

pipeline synthesis via domain-specific visual programming. obviously they're over-claiming ('generate any stable, isolable molecule') as chemists, but as a PL person this sounds great! if you're a constructivist getting into assembly theory, I think this was written for us
&gt; Linking this framework to assembly theory strengthens the definition of a molecule by demanding practical synthesizability and error correction becomes a prerequisite for universality.
<https://bsky.app/profile/leecronin.bsky.social/post/3lrnuxfiyns2c>

h/t <@UJBAJNFLK>
<https://bsky.app/profile/khinsen.net/post/3lvb5adkxis23>

Assembly theory is definitely worth a look, it's an interesting attempt at describing the complexification of chemistry over the history of our planet, ultimately leading to life.
The authors also over-claim the virtues of assembly theory, but it remains interesting even if you don't buy into "we explain the origins of life".

<https://sapphirepunk.com|s><https://sapphirepunk.com|apphirepunk> – an alternative to cypherpunk, via <@U0378MDUG1Y> 

<https://www.reddit.com/r/nosyntax>
links and demos of structural/visual code editors
<https://github.com/yairchu/awesome-structure-editors/blob/main/README.md>

That links to the Gallery of programming UIs, but the link there seems dead (and the Internet Archive is no help): <https://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=1068>  --- does anyone have a copy?

Google seems to have reorged their links. It is now <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MspuHPKtqYnOBv6pasxlccl2C-kNdDkPYwg51gZTMvg/edit?usp=sharing>